Recent changes in cultivated lands within the pronghorn antelope range

OAMAIHANA

Cry

OEC - 5 1986

RECENT CHANGES IN CULTIVATED LANDS

WITHIN THE PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
University of Alberta Libraries

https://archive.org/details/recentchangesinc1986haag

RECENT CHANGES IN CULTIVATED LANDS

1986

Edmonton

WITHIN THE PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE

by

Richard W.
Resource Evaluation

Haag

and Analysis

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife
Resource Evaluation and Planning Division

Pub. No.: T/108

International Standard Book Number:

0-86499-304-8

FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS REPORT, CONTACT
Information Centre

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife
Main Floor, Bramalea Building
9920 - 108 Street

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4
Telephone: (403) 427-3590

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the early 1970s, personnel at the Regional Fish and Wildlife
office in Lethbridge produced a map of cultivated lands in the
pronghorn antelope range from interpretation of black and white aerial
photography. Visual interpretation of Landsat imagery was used to
update this map and assess recent changes in cultivation patterns.

Cultivated lands in the pronghorn range increased from 3 877 105
acres on the baseline map (29.7% of the pronghorn range) to 4 648 068
acres on the updated map (35.6% of the pronghorn range), an increase of
19.9% in the amount of cultivated land. Large tracts of "new"
cultivated lands were found mainly in the northern part of the antelope
range, while reversions from cultivation to some other use were
scattered throughout the range.

Relative to the antelope winter ranges, the largest amounts of
"new" cultivated land were found in the Lake Newell and Murray Lake
ranges. Four winter ranges had small amounts of "new" cultivated land,
and no "new" cultivated land was observed in six winter ranges.

Maps produced as part of the Agricultural Land Base Study were
used to project the influence of current land use trends on future
availability of antelope habitat. Substantial parcels of land suitable
for rangeland conversion are found in the Milk River Ridge, Milk River
and Lodge Creek winter ranges. The remaining winter ranges contain
only small parcels of such land.

Substantial parcels of land suitable for irrigation expansion
are found in the South Saskatchewan, Red Deer Valley and Grand Forks
winter ranges. Past expansion of irrigation accounts for recent
increases in cultivated lands within the Lake Newell and Murray Lake
winter ranges.

Data on recent land use changes combined with assessments of the
potential for agricultural expansion in the future provide a basis for
the development of strategies to achieve management objectives for the
provincial pronghorn population.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. STUDY AREA 3

3. HISTORICAL TRENDS 7

3.1 Agricultural Land Use 7

3.2 Pronghorn Antelope Numbers ..... 12

4. METHODS 15

4.1 Baseline Data 15

4.2 Landsat Imagery 15

4.3 Interpretive Criteria 18

4.4 Map Production and Analysis 23

4.5 Limitations to the Interpretation 25

4.6 Field Check 26

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29

5.1 Field Check 29

5.2 Regional Patterns 31

5.3 Relationship to Winter Habitat 34

5.4 Protection of Land Use Trends 37

REFERENCES 41

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1 Wildlife Habitat Regions of Alberta 4

2 Areas of Total and Improved Farmland in Alberta,

1921-1976 9

3 Estimated Antelope Numbers in Alberta, 1900-1974 .... 13

4 Summer Landsat Imagery From an Area Northeast of Murray

Lake Showing a Wide Variety of Land Covers 17

5 Fall Landsat Imagery From the Same Area Northeast of

Murray Lake that Appears in Figure 4, Showing a
Variety of Land Covers 20

6 Crop Calendar for the Southern Region of Alberta .... 22

7 Antelope Winter Ranges and the Distribution of Land with

the Potential for Range Conversion 35

8 Antelope Winter Ranges and the Distribution of Land with

Potential for Irrigation Expansion 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Land Use Change Data for Census Districts in the

Southern Region, 1961-1976 10

2 Spectral Sensitivity and Color Conventions on LANDSAT-4

Color Imagery 16

3 Color Signatures of Land Cover Types on 31 July LANDSAT-4

Imagery 21

4 Color Signatures of Land Cover Types on Late September-

Early October LANDSAT-4 Imagery 24

5 Confusion Matrix for Field Check of Updated Cultivated

Land Maps 31

6 Summary of Cultivation Changes in Wildlife Management

Units in the Pronghorn Range 33

i x

PREFACE

In July, 1984 the Resource Appraisal Section of Resource
Evaluation and Planning was requested by the regional office of Fish
and Wildlife in Lethbridge to produce a map of cultivated lands within
the pronghorn antelope range and to analyse changes in cultivation
patterns by comparison with a map produced in the early 1970s. This
project was undertaken with the co-operation of individuals from a
number of government agencies.

Discussions with Lome Russell, head of Regional Wildlife
Services, Lome Fitch, head of Regional Habitat Services and Harry
Vriend, habitat development biologist from the regional office in
Lethbridge, were critical in identifying project objectives. Jim
Clark, habitat development biologist, served as the contact person and
provided excellent criticism of mapping methods and data
presentation.

Ian Sutherland from the Alberta Remote Sensing Centre of Alberta
Environment provided valuable advice on selection of Landsat imagery
and methods of interpretation. He also provided access to imagery on
file at the Centre which proved valuable in resolving a number of
interpretive questions.

Robin Boodle, a P.E.P. employee with the Resource Appraisal
Section, conducted the preliminary interpretation of Landsat
i magery .

xi

Lloyd Marshall and Bob Anderson from Cartographic Services,
Resource Evaluation and Planning, provided assistance with finalization
of the maps and text figures.

Planimetry was performed under contract to PPL Computer Graphics
Ltd. Bruce Mackenzie, manager of Photogrammetric Services, made
arrangements for the contract and Adolph Tonn acted as contract

co-ordinator.

1. INTRODUCTION

The recent report Status of the Fish and Wildlife Resource in
Alberta (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife
Division 1984) identified goals for the management of the provincial
pronghorn antelope population. The goal of population management is to
maintain numbers between 10 000 and 18 000 animals. Since this target
represents the carrying capacity of the present range, its achievement
depends on the maintenance and possible enhancement of about 15 000
km2 of yearround habitat and about 3 037 km^ of winter habitat.

During the 1970s, staff at the Regional Fish and Wildlife office
in Lethbridge produced a map showing the distribution of cultivated
lands within the range of pronghorn antelope in Alberta. This map was
used indirectly to assess the availability and distribution of
potential antelope habitat, and to assi st in decision making regarding
disposition of Crown land for agricultural purposes.

In 1984, the regional office in Lethbridge requested the
production of an updated version of this map. The purposes of the
update were to:

1) identify recent changes in agricultural land use within the
pronghorn antelope range, and

2) assist in making land allocation decisions in relation to
provincial targets for pronghorn antelope numbers.

1

The updated map was produced by the Resource Evaluation and
Planning Division from visual interpretation of 1983 Landsat imagery.
This report presents the results of that interpretation with background
information to make the map more useful.

2

2. STUDY AREA

The range of the pronghorn antelope corresponds closely to the
shortgrass prairie region of Alberta, with small portions in the
mixedwood prairie {Fig. 1). The climate in this portion of the
province is semi -arid and periodic summer drought has a major
ecological influence. The native prairie vegetation is dominated by
drought-resistant grasses including speargrass, junegrass and blue
grama grass, along with a variety of broadleaved plants such as pasture
sagewort, moss phlox, little clubmoss and prickly pear cactus. Woody
plants are generally restricted in their occurrence. Rose, snowberry,
chokecherry, si Iverberry and aspen are found in coulees and on sand
hills. Cottonwood, balsam poplar and willows are generally confined to
river valleys. Silver sage, of special importance as a major food for
antelope (Mitchell and Smoliak 1971), is found throughout the area but
generally reaches highest cover values in low-lying basins where there
are fi ne-textured soils.

The modal soils in the prairies are Brown (in the shortgrass
prairie) and Dark Brown (in the mi xedgrass prairie) Chernozems. These
soils have a deep humus layer due to the annual decomposition of root
matter, and they are only slightly leached because of low rainfall.
Saline soils of the Solonetzic order are common in areas of groundwater
di scharge.

3

[ ] o u 2 :;i

Short Grass
M/xed Grass

| | Borea/ Mixed wood

Borea/ Footb///s
Fescue Grass £•] Borea/ Up/and

Aspen Park /and Borea/ North/ands

Montane [/F] Borea/ Subarc t/c

(77J Suba/p/ne & A/p/ne

Fig.

WILDLIFE HABITAT REGIONS OF ALBERTA. Source: Pedocan Land
Evaluations 1984, adapted from Strong and Leggat 1981).

4

This landscape supports an abundant and diverse wildlife
including species like mule deer that are found throughout the province
and others like antelope and sage grouse that are unique to the
prai ries.

5

3. HISTORICAL TRENDS

3.1 Agricultural Land Use

Small scale conversion of wild land to agricultural use began in
the last part of the 18th century as trading outposts were established
in Alberta. MacGregor (1977) notes that as early as 1787 Peter Pond
was growing a garden along the lower Athabasca River, and that barley
crops were grown at Fort Edmonton as early as 1810. These early
efforts were designed to meet local needs, and it was not until passage
of the first Dominions Lands Act (1872) which granted free homesteads
to settlers and the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway
(1881-1885) that conversion to agricultural use began in earnest.

Systematic records of agricultural land use in Alberta are
available from the agricultural census beginning in 1921 (McCuaig and
Manning 1982). Census data identifies two types of farmland. Improved
farmland includes cropland, improved pasture, summer fallow and other
related land (farmyards, roads and trails, idle land). Unimproved
farmland includes woodland, wetlands and native pasture which are lands
that are used in their natural state. These records show that the
total amount of farmland in the province rose from 29 281 600 acres in
1921 to 49 909 249 acres in 1976 (Fig. 2A). The rate of addition of
new farmland (which averaged 1.28% per year) generally decreased over
time with the greatest decrease occurring around the Second World War.
Improved farmland increased from 11 763 441 acres in 1921 to 29 290 734

7

acres in 1976, for an average annual increase of 2.71%. The rate of
addition of improved farmland did not show the same tendency to
decrease during later census intervals (Fig. 2B), indicating that
intensification of use has been a major trend in recent times.

McCuaig and Manning (1982) presented a separate analysis of land
use changes by standardized census district that permits a closer look
at the situation in the southern region of the province (Table 1). The
amount of improved and unimproved farmland in Census Districts 901-906
decreased by 298 996 acres from 1962 to 1976. The Medicine Hat and
Taber-Lethbridge districts showed an increase in total farmland, while
total farmland in the other four districts decreased. The amount of
improved farmland increased in all census distdricts over the same
period, for an increase of 741 469 acres in the southern region.

Birch (1982) recently conducted a study of further changes in
the agricultural land base from 1976 to 1980 and concluded that there
had been virtually no change in the amount of land in agricultural use
during this period. Based on a detailed analysis of data on the
disposition and use of Crown lands from Alberta Energy and Natural
Resources and other data on land use changes from Alberta Municipal
Affairs and the Energy Resources Conservation Board, he found that
Alberta's agricultural land base had decreased by an average of about
one section per year from 1976 to 1980. This small net change was
underlain by substantial changes in land allocation and land quality.
An average of 77 000 acres had been added and 78 000 acres removed from
the land base each year, and the CLI rating of land that was added was

8

MILLIONS OF ACRES

1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971

DATE

Fig. 2. AREAS OF TOTAL (A) AND IMPROVED (B) FARMLAND IN ALBERTA.
1921-1976. Source: McCuaig and Manning 1982.

1981

9

Table 1

LAND USE CHANGE DATA FOR CENSUS DISTRICTS
IN THE SOUTHERN REGION, 1961-1976

Census District

Change in

Total Farmland (ac)

Change in

Improved Farmland (ac)

Medicine Hat

+ 74 298

+ 92 084

Taber-Lethbridge

+ 296 889

+ 193 164

Fort McLeod

- 282 133

+ 96 755

Red Deer Valley

- 133 387

+ 232 659

Drumheller

- 45 781

+ 92 320

Calgary

- 208 880

+ 29 487

TOTAL

- 298 996

+ 741 469

Source: McCuaig and Manning 1982

10

lower than that of the land that had been removed from agricultural

use.

In the southern region of the province, which includes the
pronghorn antelope range, the amount of land used for agriculture

decreased by an average 4 525 acres per year, for an estimated total
reduction of 22 626 acres over the five year period (from Table 6, 5.8%
of a total provincial decrease of 390 100 bacres). The most common
reasons for removal of land from agricultural use were urban

annexations, non-agricul tural subdivisions, and road construction and
wideni ng.

A recent report by the Environment Council of Alberta (1984)

suggests that this pattern of reversion to non-agricul tural use may be

a temporary phenomenon. In recent years agricultural land close to
urban centres has acquired considerable speculative value because of
the responsibility that the land could be used for some purpose other
than agriculture. This inflation of value, which provided an incentive
for conversion from agricultural to non-agricul tural use, was in large
part the result of the rapid influx of people to the province during
the boom years of the late 1970s. It is unlikely that this pattern
will persist in the face of stabilization of the provincial
economy .

Recent studies of the agricultural land base indicate that there
is still considerable potential for intensification and expansion of
agriculture in the southern region of the province (Agricultural Land
Base Study Progress Report, April 25, 1984). Some types of

11

agricultural expansion would have little effect on the availability of
potential antelope habitat; reduction in allow acreage, for example.
Other means of increasing agricultural production could have a
significant effect. The two most significant are conversion of
rangeland and expansion of irrigation. Possible impacts of these
activities are assessed at the end of this report.

3.2 Pronghorn Antelope Numbers

Mitchell (1980) cites estimates that before European settlement
in North America, pronghorn numbers equalled or exceeded those of the
bison (30 to 40 million; Nelson 1925, Seton 1953). The number of
pronghorns declined rapidly as settlement occurred as a result of
habitat conversion, competition with cattle, weather, predation,
disease and hunting. The animals remained numerous, however, at the
beginning of the 20th century.

Mitchell (1980) has reconstructed pronghorn population trends
from 1900-1974 using data from a variety of sources. His
reconstruction should be treated as an approximation, since the quality
of population records varies widely. The time of year when estimates
were made and the intensity of population surveys are not specified,
for example. According to the estimates he used, population size has
fluctuated from less than 2 000 to nearly 22 000 animals (Fig. 3). His
i nterpretation indicates that of all the factors that influence
population size, winter weather has the greatest influence on the
number of antelope in the province. Severe winters have caused major
reductions in population size and have prevented small populations

12

O fv

r~r

IDOO

T

THOUSANDS

- — — — — IV IS)

T““ T“T“ T^^T— r~T

1881

1910

1914

1932 - k-.

♦ EXTREMELY SEVERE WINTER , I90T

•♦HARD WINTERS 1916-1916

♦ CLOSED SEASONS 1914-1934

♦ HARD WINTERS 1927-1928

♦ MILD WINTERS 1929 - 1934

♦ DROUGHTS 8 SEVERE WINTERS 1934 -1937

♦■alternating wet a dry summers 1938-1947

1945

♦ SEVERE WINTER 1948

♦ OROUGHT 1949

THOUSANDS

Fig. 3. ESTIMATED ANTELOPE NUMBERS IN ALBERTA, 1900-1974.
Source: Mitchell 1980.

13

from expanding even after closure of the hunting season. The influence
of severe winters has been documented by others; Barrett (1982)
reported 48.5% mortality in a total population of approximatley 14 360
animals during the severe winter of 1977/78.

Severe winter weather has also caused shifts in distribution
that reflect a species at the limits of its geographic range. These
shifts may occur locally; Barrett (1982) fould that about two-thirds of
the provincial population was displaced from the low-lying brushlands
that are normal winter range into areas with lower snow cover during a
severe winter. On a broader scale, Anderson (1924) indicated that the
severe winter of 1906/07 displaced pronghorns from much of their
Canadian range and that large portions of the range remained unoccupied
in the fall of 1907. An extensive survey by Nelson (1925) indicated
that during the general decline in antelope numbers during the early
part of the century, the species had been eliminated from large
portions of its former range in the east.

14

4. METHODS

4.1 Baseline Data

The original cultivated lands map produced in about 1970 by
regional Fish and Wildlife personnel was the source of baseline
information. This map was produced at a sale of 1:250 000 from black
and white air photos obtained at several scales during the late 1960s
and early 1970s. We were not able to obtain a record of the photos
that were used to produce the map, so we treated it as a somewhat fluid
picture of the pattern of agricultural land use 15 to 20 years in the
past, appropriate for interpretation of regional trends over the medium
and long term.

4.2 LANDSAT Imagery

The updated map of cultivated lands was produced by visual
i nterpretation of LANDSAT-4 imagery. We chose Landsat imagery for 3
reasons:

1. Availability of prints at the same scale as the baseline
map so land use changes could be determined by direct
overlay.

2. Availability of coverage within a 12 month period for 95% of
the area.

15

3. Lower costs compared to black and white photos for complete
coverage of the area.

The pronghorn antelope range occurs on parts of eight LAND SAT- 4
scenes. The requirement for low (<5%) cloud cover necessitated
selection of scenes from three different dates. Small cloud-covered
areas were mapped by interpretation of black and white air photos.

The LANDSAT-4 prints that we analysed were false-color
composites of bands 1, 2 and 4. The spectral sensitivity of these
bands is shown in Table 2. The general appearance of these Landsat
prints is normally quite similar to conventional false-color air
photos. However, the color balance of the prints we analysed was
shifted strongly toward the green wavelengths (Fig. 4) because of drift
in the output from one of the four sensors that was not corrected until
our imagery had been processed.

Table 2

SPECTRAL SENSITIVITY AND COLOR CONVENTIONS
ON LANDSAT-4 COLOR IMAGERY

Band

Wavel engths

Objects Detected

Color on Image

1

500- 600 nin

Vegetation, water

B1 ue

2

600-700 nm

Bare soil, mature
and senescent
vegetation

Green

3

700- 800 nm

Not printed

4

800-1100 nm

Healthy vegetation

Red

16

Fig. 4. SUMMER LANDSAT IMAGERY FROM AM AREA MORTHEAST OF MURRAY LAKE

SHOWING A WIDE VARIETY OF LAND COVERS.

1. Irrigated cropland.

2. Strip-cropping with mature crops (white-yellow), actively
growing crops (orange-red) and fallow land (light-medium
green) .

3. Native vegetation in the Murray Lake winter range
(grassland - medium green, riparian vegetation and
shrub! and - olive-red).

4. Sparsely vegetated southern exposure in the South
Saskatchewan river valley (pale blue).

5. Grazed pasture in the Bow Island Grazing Reserve
(light-medium green).

17

4.3 Interpretive Criteria

Landsat imagery provides a record of the average reflectance of
the ground surface that can be used to identify land cover. A map of
cultivated lands is a record of land use rather than land cover;
however, since cultivation is a process that can be used to manufacture
a variety of land covers. Land covers produced by cultivation include
the following: annual cereal crops produced by dryland farming

methods, annual cereal and other crops (e.g. sugar beets) produced
under irrigation, perennial forage crops grown for hay, and fallow
land, which may or may not have a cover of weeds. The appearance of
each of these cover types varies widely over the course of the year.
The interpretation of land use requires an ability to recognize each of
these cover types and to distinguish them from other types that are not
the result of cultivation.

Reliable and consistent interpretation depends on the
identification of suitable criteria and sequential application to
narrow down the range of possibilities and arrive at an accurate
classification. The following criteria were applied in sequence to
identify cultivated lands (Plitz 1982, Pearce et al . 1983).

1. Shape. Cultural features including parcels of agricultural
land are usually regular in shape, while natural objects
have an irregular shape. The first step in the
i nterpretation is to identify all regul arly-shaped land
parcel s.

18

Circular features up to one section in size are classified
as cultivated land under pivot irrigation.

Rectilinear parcels are interpreted as either cultivated or
grazing land.

Irregularly shaped parcels are interpreted as "wild land"
(including native rangeland used for grazing) and are not
examined further.

2. Pattern. This criterion gives important clues to the use of
the land in question.

Regular parcels divided into alternating light and dark
strips, and generally oriented N-$, are interpreted as
cultivated land under fallow rotation in a pattern typical
of dryland farming (Figs. 4 and 5). The color pattern of
these parcels varies widely among seasons. Contiguous small
parcels with a range in colour and tone similar to that in
strip-cultivated areas are also interpreted as cultivated
land in fallow rotation.

Remaining regular features include both cultivated and
grazing land.

3. Color and texture. These criteria are used to check
i nterpretations from previous steps and to isolate grazing
land further. The interpretation of image colors is made
complex by the number of possible land covers produced by
cultivation, and because the appearance of these covers

19

Fig. 5. FALL LANDSAT IMAGERY FROM THE SAME AREA NORTHEAST OF MURRAY

LAKE THAT APPEARS IN FIG. 4, SHOWING A VARIETY OF LAND COVERS

1. Mature (yellow) and harvested (light-medium green)
irrigated crops.

2. Harvested dry land crops showing stubble (pale blue-green)
and fallow fields (light-medium green).

3. Native vegetation in the Murray Lake winter range (shrubs
have lost their leaves and no longer appear red).

4, 5. Areas of native grassland appear darker than on summer
imagery because sunlight is less intense.

20

varies from season to season. A crop calendar presented by
Reichert and Crown (1984) was used to aid in the
i nterpretation of colour (Fig. 6).

Un late July imagery, land covers produced by cultivation
include actively growing crops planted in spring, mature
crops planted in spring and fall, stubble remaining after
harvest of fall planted crops, and fallow land. The color
signatures of these land covers are presented in Table
3.

Table 3

COLOR SIGNATURES OF LAND COVER TYPES
UN 31 JULY LANDSAT-4 IMAGERY

COVER TYPE

COLOR ON IMAGE

Actively growing dryland crops

Pale blue, red

Actively growing irrigated crops

Red

Mature crops

White, yellow

Stubble fields

Light to medium green

Fallow land

Pale to light green

Native rangeland

Light blue to medium/
dark green

j Improved pasture

Dark green

21

Wheat

Barley

Oats

Winter

Wheat

Fall

Rye

Hay

Pasture

' Jan ' Feb ' Mar ' Apr ' May ' June ' July ' Aug ' Sept ' Oct ' Nov ' Dec '

Seeding

Active Growth (green)
Mature Growth (harvest)
Dormant Period
Grazing

FIG. 6. CROP CALENDAR FOR THE SOUTHERN REGION OF ALBERTA.
Source: Reichert and Crown 1984.

22

On summer imagery, there was a pattern of earlier crop maturity
in the south, with white and yellow parcels more common than in the
north. In the northern part of the area, fields supporting crops still
appeared red indicating that these crops had not matured.

There was an overlap of colors among parcels interpreted as
fallow and/or stubble land and parcels interpreted as rangeland used
for grazing. Where there was uncertainty, the conservative approach
classified the parcel as cultivated land.

On fall imagery, land covers produced by cultivation included
mature grain crops seeded in spring, stubble remaining after harvest,
actively growing crops seeded in fall, mature hay crops and fallow land
(Fig. 6). The color signatures of these land cover types were
different from those seen in July because of the lower input of
sunlight later in the year (Table 4, Fig. 5).

Again, there was considerable overlap of colors between
cultivated land and other land covers, especially in the medium green
tones. Again, the conservative approach was taken and uncertain
parcels were classified as cultivated.

4.4 Map Production and Analysis

The location of all parcels classified as cultivated land was
outlined directly on the images and transferred to mylar transparencies
of 1:250 000 scale NTS sheets by direct overlay. The map of 1983
cultivated lands was then overlaid on the original cultivated lands map
in order to identify currently uncultivated parcels that were

23

cultivated on the original map along with "new" cultivated lands. The
updated map thus identified four classes of land:

- cultivated on the
present.

original map

but

not

cul ti vated

at

- not cultivated on
present.

the original

map

but

cul ti vated

at

- cultivated on both maps

- not cultivated on either map.

The final step in the analysis was to add the boundaries of
Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) and to determine the proportion of
land in each class within each WMU using an electronic planimeter. WMU
boundaries do not appear on the maps that accompany this report,
because they are likely to change from time to time and they gave the
map a very cluttered appearance.

Table 4

COLOR SIGNATURES OF LAND COVER TYPES ON LATE
SEPTEMBER-EARLY OCTOBER LANDSAT-4 IMAGERY

COVER TYPE

COLOR ON IMAGE j

Actively growing crops

Pale to medium blue-green

Mature grain crops

Pale green, yellow, white

Mature hay crops

Medium-dark green, red

Stubble fields

Light to medium green

Fallow land

Light to medium green

Native rangeland

Medium to dark green

Improved pasture

Very dark green

24

4.5 Limitations to the Interpretation

1. The color interpretation key devised for this project should
not be used with other Landsat magery because of the
overrepresentation of green tones due to drift in one of the
MSS sensors. Interpretations based on this key were checked
against earlier Landsat imagery with better color balance
(courtesy of Ian Sunderland at the Alberta Remote Sensing
Centre), and we are confident in the interpretation.
However, attempts to use our color keys to interpret
properly balanced imagery would probably be very frustrating
and lead to incorrect results.

2. We did not treat urban or industrial land as a separate
class. We "mapped around" larger urban centres (e.g.
Medicine Hat, Taber). We included smaller towns in with
cultivated lands because they usually abutted cropland and
the parcels they occupied were small in a regional
context.

3. Land use changes relating to road construction and widening
and well site access and construction do not appear on the
map. While changes in land cover due to these activities
may be significant (Birch 1982), the parcels involved are
smaller than the practical resolution limits of Landsat
imagery .

25

4. In general, the smallest parcel of land that we mapped was
one quarter-section in size. However, where there were
large number of small contiguous parcels and most of them
were cultivated, we did not attempt to isolate all the non-
cultivated ones. Our rationale was based on Barrett's
(1980) observation that preferred antelope ranges contain an
average of 88% native vegetation. We did not feel that
inclusion of small parcels of native vegetation in the
cultivated land base within heavily farmed areas detracted
from the usefulness of the map.

5. The location accuracy on Landsat composite prints is
generally regarded as about 700 m. Location accuracy for
most parcels, especially in heavily developed areas, is
probably greater than this. However, spatial accuracy will
be lower for relatively isolated small parcels of cultivated
1 and.

4.6 Field Check

The accuracy of updated cultivated lands maps was checked in the
field by recording land cover by quarter section while travelling in a
vehicle along a preselected route. The route was selected by users of
the map to include areas where substantial changes in land use had been
mapped. Side loops around the town of Schuler (Twp. 15-16, R. 1),
north of Jenner (Twp. 21-22, R. 8-9), east of Tide Lake (Twp. 19, R.
9-10) and north of Patricia (Twp. 20, R. 12-13) were included to allow
examination of large blocks of "new" cultivated land.

26

Observations were recorded on 1 138 quarter sections of land.
Land parcels were classified into four land cover types: annual
cropland (including fallow), perennial (forage) cropland, native
vegetation, and improved pasture planted to tame grasses. The class
improved pasture was treated separately so that we could determine the
land use class in which it tended to fall.

27

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Field Check

The updated cultivated lands maps provide information on both
current land cover and land use change. The accuracy of current land
cover mapping was fairly high; 92.6% of the lands mapped as currently
cultivated (map classes "cultivated on baseline map and 1983 update"
and "not cultivated on baseline map, cultivated on 1983 update")
consisted of annual or perennial cropland. Currently uncultivated
lands were mapped with slightly lower accuracy; 90.5% of the lands
mapped as currently uncultivated (map classes "native vegetation, not
cultivated on either date" and "cultivated on baseline map, not
cultivated on 1983 update" consisted of rangeland or improved
pasture.

The accuracy of land use change detection cannot be assessed
directly from the field check because no estimate is available of the
accuracy of the baseline map. Each land use class on the maps can be
assessed for consistency with current land cover classification,
however, (Table 5) .

The land use class "cultivated on baseline map and 1983 update"
was highly consistent with observations of current land cover; 95% of
the parcels so mapped consisted of annual or perennial cropland. A
similar result was observed for the class "not cultivated on baseline

29

map, cultivated on 1983 update"; 90% of these land parcels consisted of
annual or perennial cropland.

Neither of the other two land use classes should have contained
cropland. The class "native vegetation, not cultivated on either date"
was highly consistent with land cover mapping; 93% of these parcels had
a cover of native vegetation. The class "cultivated on baseline map,
not cultivated on 1983 update" did not fare so well; however, only 33%
0f these parcels consisted of native vegetation.

The results of the field check suggest that there were two major
sources of error in land cover interpretations. The first lies in the
use of less than optimal image dates. We found interpretations based
on imagery from late July to be the most accurate, because of the high
contrast among spectral signatures of the land covers of interest.
Accuracy was lower with images from early April and late September,
because of lower contrast among spectral signatures and generally lower
levels of illumination.

The second source of error is the use of single data imagery.
Even with the use of imagery from the optimal late summer period, there
is the possibility of confusing several cover types. For example,
heavily grazed rangeland or pasture can be mistaken for fallow fields
that have not yet been disked. In such cases, comparison with spring
imagery would permit a more accurate interpretation. The use of
multi -date imagery might also improve the accuracy with which improved
pasture was identified.

30

Table 5

CONFUSION MATRIX FOR FIELD CHECK OF UPDATED
CULTIVATED LAND MAPS

Map

Class

Annual

Crop

Land

Hay

Crop

Cover Classes
Range-
land

Improved

Pasture

%

Correct

Cult. 1970
and 1983

475

20

20

6

95

Cult. 1983
not 1970

85

15

5

6

90

Cult. 1970
not 1983

19

12

12

3

33

Not Cult.

15

2

428

15

93

5.2 Regional Patterns

There has been a substantial increase in the amount of
cultivated land in the pronghorn antelope range since the baseline map
as produced. On the baseline map 3 877 105 acres (29.7% of the land in
the pronghorn range) was under cultivation. In 1983, an estimated
4 648 068 acres of land (35.6% of the pronghorn range) was cultivated.
The amount of cultivated land thus increased by 770 964 acres during
the interval between production of the two maps, an increase of 19.9%.
This net increase represents the balance between 1 076 512 acres of
"new" cultivated land and 305 549 acres of land that reverted from
cultivation to some other use.

31

The largest contiguous blocks of "new" cultivated land were
found in the following areas: south of Schuler (Twp. 14-15, R.l),
southwest of Dinosaur Provincial Park (Twp. 20, Rg. 12-13), north of
Bow City (Twp. 17-18, Rg. 16-17), northeast of Sibbald (Twp. 28, R. 1),
east of Dinosaur Provincial Park along the Red Deer River (Twp. 22, R.
8, 10) and south-southeast of Sullivan Lake (Twp. 31-33, R. 14).

There were very few large parcels of land that had reverted from
cultivation to some other use. The greatest concentrations of land
that had reverted from cultivation were found in the following areas:
south of Cypress Hills Provincial Park (Twp. 7, R. 1-3), east of
Dinosaur Provincial Park along the Red Deer River (Twp. 22-23, R. 7-9)
and south of the North Milk River (Twp. 1-2, R. 20-23).

The antelope range consists of all or parts of 24 wildlife
management units, in addition to Cypress Hills Provincial Park ( WMU
120) and Suffield Military Reserve (WMU 146). Land use changes in ech
WMU are summarized in Table 6.

There was a net decrease in the amount of cultivated land in the
three WMUs that abut the Saskatchewan border south of the Trans-Canada
highway. The amount of cultivated land increased in the other 21
wildlife management units.

Net increases in cultivated lands exceeded 75 000 acres in four
WMUs north of the Trans-Canada highway: 162, 164, 152 and 151.
Increases in cultivated lands from 25 000 to 75 000 acres were recorded
in WMUs 142, 148, 166, 144 and 138. In the remaining 12 WMUs, the
amount of cultivated land increased by less than 25 000 acres.

32

WMU

102

104

106

108

112

116

118

119

120

124

128

130

134

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

151

152

160

162

164

166

Table 6

SUMMARY OF CULTIVATION CHANGES IN WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT UNITS IN THE PRONGHORN RANGE

(All areas are given in acres and percentages
are shown in parentheses)

Total Area

Cultivated 1970

Cultivated 1983

Net

Change

842 018

77 229 ( 9.6)

73 552 ( 8.7)

- 3 677

251 577

122 166 (48.6)

126 699 (50.40

+ 4 533

701 658

559 013 (79.7)

573 845 (81.8)

+ 14 832

515 119

144 564 (28.1)

144 799 (28.1)

+ 234

690 572

571 738 (82.8)

590 663 (85.5)

+ 18 925

502 680

229 582 (45.7)

236 060 (47.0)

+ 6 478

426 628

30 203 ( 7.1)

16 090 ( 3.8)

- 14 113

319 942

129 734 (40.5)

124 320 (38.9)

- 5 413

47 592

1 279 ( 2.7)

- 1 279

363 107

142 489 (39.2)

15 859 (42.9)

+ 13 370

462 391

161 182 (34.9)

179 786 (38.9)

+ 18 604

53 122

21 086 (39.7)

23 485 (44.2)

+ 2 399

2 880

1 919 (66.6)

2 880 (100 )

+ 961

360 173

86 840 (24.1)

122 221 (33.9)

+ 35 381

338 802

198 474 (58.6)

221 374 (65.3)

+ 22 900

358 975

70 230 (19.6)

127 272 (35.5)

+ 57 042

609 048

| see ion

74 594 (12.2)

112 185 (18.4)

+ 37 591

ODD 1 jU

705 916

159 157 (22.5)

211 585 (30.0)

+ 52 428

474 746

133 474 (28.1)

143 070 (30.1)

+ 9 596

697 192

256 798 (36.8)

332 573 (47.7)

+ 75 775

821 776

112 341 (13.9)

189 723 (23.1)

+ 77 382

344 921

32 066 ( 9.3)

65 393 (19.0)

+ 33 327

1 182 068

260 402 (22.0)

425 917 (36.0)

+165 515

1 195 144

293 609 (24.6)

297 174 (33.2)

+103 565

125 103

6 933 ( 5.5)

51 544 (41.2)

+ 44 611

33

5.3 Relationship to Winter Habitat

Barrett and Vriend (1980) identified 12 known winter ranges of
pronghorn antelope in Alberta. The location of these ranges is shown
in Figs. 7 and 8. We examined these areas to identify recent trends in
land use.

In the early 1970s relatively large amounts of cultivated land
were found in three ranges: the northern portion of Murray Lake

(approximately 80% cultivated), Lake Newell (approximately 50%
cultivated) and Walsh Flats (approximately 25% cultivated). Six ranges
contained on the order of 10% cultivated lands: Milk River Ridge, Red
Deer River, Milk River (western portion), Canal Creek (eastern

portion), Sage Creek and South Saskatchewan River. Less than 5% of the
Milk River (eastern portion), Murray Lake (southern portion), Grand
Forks, Lodge Creek and Suffield winter ranges were cultivated.

Inspection of the updated maps shows that in six of the 12

ranges there were no "new" cultivated lands. These ranges were: Sage
Creek, Milk River, Canal Creek, Grand Forks, Suffield, and the southern
portion of the Murray Lake range. Within the Sage Creek range, the
amount of cultivated land appeared to have decreased by about three

sections over the past 10 to 15 years. Reversions to non-cul ti vated
use were smaller in the other ranges in this group.

Small amounts of "new" cultivated land were seen in four ranges:
Milk River Ridge (4-5 sections). Red Deer River (4-5 sections), South
Saskatchewan River (2-3 sections) and Walsh Flats (1-2 sections). Of

34

INDEX TO WINTER RANGES OF PRONGHORN

A Red Deer River
Cl- 4 South Saskatchewan River

D Walsh Flats

E Lodge Creek

F Sage Creek

G Murray Lake

H Canal Creek

II— 2 Milk River

J Milk River Ridge
K Grand Forks

L Lake Newell

S Sutlield

LEGEND

Summer range boundary
Winter ranges
Non-Cultivated CLI 1-4

o 20

Study Area

MONTANA

Fig. 7. ANTELOPE WINTER RANGES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND WITH THE
POTENTIAL FOR RANGELAND CONVERSION (defined as currently
uncultivated land in CLI Classes 1-4).

35

SASKATCHEWAN

INDEX TO WINTER RANGES OF PRONGHORN

A R«d Dear River
Cl— 4 South Saskatchewan River
D Walth Flats

E Lodes Creek

t Sage Creek

G Murray lake

H Canal Creek

11—2 Milk River

J Milk River Ridge
K Grand Forks

l lake Newell

S SuHield

LEGEND

Summer range boundary
Winter ranges

Land with fair to good potential
Current use (Irrigation)
o 20 so eo

MONTANA

Fig. 8. ANTELOPE WINTER RANGES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND WITH
POTENTIAL FOR IRRIGATION EXPANSION.

36

SASKATCHEWAN

these areas, the greatest amount of reversion to non-cul ti vated use was
in Walsh Flats (3-4 sections) and the South Saskatchewan River (1-2
sections) .

More substantial amounts of "new" cultivated land relative to
the size of the areas were found in the Lake Newell (10-11 sections)
and Murray Lake (6-7 sections) ranges. Reversions to non-cul ti vated
use accounted for less than one section in each of these areas.

5.4 Protection of Land Use Trends

The recent report Maintaining and Expanding the Agricultural
Land Base in Alberta: Summary and Recommendations (Environment Council
of Alberta 1984) identifies the major role of agriculture in the
provincial economy and emphasizes the importance of sound land
management to the future of agriculture in the province. The theme of
several recommendations is that land allocation decisions need to be
made with a view toward sustainability of agricultural use, and that
there are many lands not suitable for farming.

Alberta's potential arable land base is currently defined as all
lands rated as class 4 or better by the Canada Land Inventory. In the
southern region of the province, lands in CLI classes 1-4 that are
currently unfarmed have been identified as potentially arable through
range conversion. A map of these lands, prepared by Alberta
Agriculture through visual interpretation of Landsat imagery at a scale
of 1:1 000 000, generally agrees with the pattern identified on
accompanying 1:250 000 scale maps (Figs. 7 and 8). We identified some

37

cultivated lands within the parcels mapped as uncultivated at the
smaller scale, but these differences appear to be related to the
difference between mapping scales.

In general, the remaining parcels of potentially arable,

currently uncultivated lands identified in the Agricultural Land Base
Study are relatively small in the areas near winter ranges. The
largest parcels are found in the Milk River Ridge, Milk River and Lodge
Creek ranges, and less than 25% of the areas of these ranges are
classed as potentially arable. Given that these parcels are relatively
small and isolated from developed agricultural areas, it does not

appear that range conversion will create major pressure on antelope
winter ranges in the near future.

Another possible means of expanding agricultural lands in the
southern region of the province is through expansion of irrigation.
The potential of the land to support irrigation is assessed on the
basis of physiographic and soil profile features: Karkanis and Barton
(1983) have produced a detailed map of irrigation potential in the
southern region at a scale of 1:500 000.

A derivative of this map at a larger scale (Fig. 8) shows the
reason behind the large proportion of cultivated lands and recent

increases in these lands in the Newell Lake and Murray Lake winter

ranges. Both of these ranges are in currently irrigated areas and
circular, pi vot-irri gated fields are common in both areas.

38

The impact of irrigation expansion on the other winter ranges is
likely to be highly variable. A substantial fraction of the South
Saskatchewan, Red Deer Valley and Grand Forks ranges has been assessed
as fair to good for irrigation. Smaller amounts of potentially
irrigable land are found in the Walsh Flats and Milk River Ridge
ranges. The remaining ranges (Milk River, Sage Creek, Lodge Creek,
Suf field and Canal Creek) do not contain lands classified as suitable
for irrigation.

The recent report Status of the Fish and Wildlife Resource in
A1 berta identified population and habitat goals for the provincial
pronghorn population. The goal of population management is to maintain
numbers between 10 000 and 18 000 animals while the goal for habitat is
to maintain or enhance the present year-round habitat of about 15 000
square km and winter habitat of 3 037 square km.

The results of this analysis indicate that there has been a
considerable amount of land converted from native vegetation cover to
intensive agricultural use over the past 15-20 years. Most of this
conversion; however, has been in areas that would probably be classed
as summer range. Agricultural expansion thus may not have had a great
impact on the ability to maintain the provincial pronghorn population,
because of the management emphasis on winter habitat.

The observed expansion of agriculture into known winter ranges
is probably more significant from the standpoint of population
management. At present, expansion has been confined mainly to the Lake
Newell and Murray Lake winter ranges where irrigation systems have been

39

created, but there is potential for expanding into other areas as
wel 1 .

On a regional basis, development pressures are likely to be
least in the extreme southeast corner of the province where the Milk
River, Sage Creek and Lodge Creek winter ranges are found and where the
potential for agricultural expansion is regarded as low. Other winter
ranges may come under greater development pressure, however. The
recent changes in land use documented in this report coupled with
assessments of land potential for further development provide a basis
for projections of future habitat availability on which the maintenance
of the provincial pronghorn population depends.

40

REFERENCES

Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division.
1984. Status of the Fish and Wildlife Resource in Alberta.
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Edmonton.

Alberta Economic Development. 1982. Alberta Industry and Resources.
Alberta Economic Development, Edmonton.

Anderson, R.M. 1924. The present status and future prospects of the
larger mammals of Canada. Scot. Geog. Mag. November, 1984, pp.
321-331. (cited in Mitchell 1980).

Barrett, M.W. 1982. Distribution, behavior and mortality of

Pronghorns during a severe winter in Alberta. J. Wild. Manage.
46: 991-1002.

. 1984. Movements, habitat use and predation of pronghorn

fawns in Alberta. J. Wild. Manage. 48: 542-550.

Barrett, M.W. and H. Yriend. 1980. Management implications of the
seasonal distributions of pronghorns and land use practices in
Alberta. Proc. Bienn. Pronghorn Antelope Workshop. 9:

196-214.

Birch, A. 1982. An inventory of changes in Alberta's agricultural

land base between 1976 and 1980. Project Report RE-03-13-82,
Resource Economics Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton.

Environment Council of Alberta. 1984. Maintaining and expanding the
agricultural land base in Alberta: Summary report and

recommendations. Environment Council of Alberta, Edmonton.

McCuaig, J.D. and E.W. Manning. 1982. Agricutural land use change in
Canada: process and consequences. Land Use in Canada Ser. No.
21, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

MacGregor, J.G. 1972. A History of Alberta. Hurtig, Edmonton.

Mitchell, G.J. 1980. The Pronghorn Antelope in Alberta. Department
of Biology, Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Mitchell, G.J. and S. Smoliak. 1971. Pronghorn antelope range
character!' sties and food habitats in Alberta. J. Wild. Manage.
35: 238-250.

Nelson, E.W. 1925. Status of the pronghorn antelope, 1922-1924. U.S.
Dept. Agr. Rept. No. 1346. Washington, D.C. (cited in Mitchell
1980).

41

Pearce, C.M., F. Ahern, R. Brown, K. Thomson, S. Klumph and C. Bricker.
1983. Monitoring rangelands in the mixedgrass prairies of
southern Alberta with rangeland-enhanced Landsat imagery: a

user's guide. Pub! . No. 83-2. Alberta Remote Sensing Centre,
Alberta Environment, Edmonton.

Plitz, P.J. 1982. A non-sophi sticated, low cost approach for routing
high voltage transmission lines using Landsat imagery. pp.
437-447. In Johannsen, C.J. and J.L. Sanders, eds. Remote
Sensing for Resource Management. Soil Conservation Society of
America, Ankeny, Iowa.

Seton, E.T. 1953. Lives of Game Animals, Vol . 3 Part 2, Order
Ungulate or hoofed animals: deer, antelope, sheep, cattle and
peccary. Charles T. Brantford Co., Boston (cited in Mitchell
1980).

Strong, W.L and K.R. Leggat. 1981. Ecoregions of Alberta. Tech.
Rept. No. T/4, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Edmonton.

42

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

BLACKFOOT

INPIANM;

IVE 146

§ B 28 . R 27 R 26 R 25 R 24 R 23

§ 451 30'

Is R 2

1§ 113'

' II J II / s

2

*, 00*

R 21

IV II 1 1 Ha 11 '

R 20

45’

ii ii ii

R 19 I

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

GLEICHEN 82 I

SOURCE:

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S, BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL OFFICE, LETHBRIDGE

-1983 UPDATE PREPARED FROM VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF LANDSAT— 4 IMAGERY
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION. EDMONTON l§> COPYRIGHT 1980

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10 15

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH.
ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON. © COPYRIGHT 1980

-

1 -NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-NOT CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP. CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP AND 1983 UPDATE
LIMITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE IN ALBERTA

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

SOURCE:

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S, BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL OFFICE, LETHBRIDGE

-1983 UPDATE PREPARED FROM VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF LANDSAT 4 IMAGERY
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE 1 : 250000

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH.
ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION. EDMONTON COPYRIGHT 1980

] -NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

park;

Tp 20

bi

c

■ ^

;} ^

f #1

< ' ‘

*

*"

j .. | j -1-

*

&

: f

&

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S, BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL OFFICE, LETHBRIDGE

-1983 UPDATE PREPARED FROM VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF LANDSAT-4 IMAGERY
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE ^ : 250000

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH
ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION. EDMONTON # COPYRIGHT 1980

LEGEND

V

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10 15 20 km

0 5 10 15 miles

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH.

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON fCj COPYRIGHT 1980

1 -NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-NOT CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP AND 1983 UPDATE
LIMITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE IN ALBERTA

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

SOURCE

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S. BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL OFFICE. LETHBRIDGE

-1983 UPDATE PREPARED FROM VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF LANDSAT— 4 IMAGERY
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10 15 20

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH.
ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION. EDMONTON. lC' COPYRIGHT 1980

Rosedale

LITTLE FISH LAK^
Jv PRGV PARK" 1

Wester^- Monarch

Rdbkyford

R 15 112° 00'

113° 00'
R 22

RFFERF.NCE MERIDIAN 111°

J

r

M

-iff

f“

r

{%

4^-f

"^*1 f

Teseii

LEGEND

SCALE 1 : 250000

0 5 10 15 20 km

0 5 10 15 miles

PRODUCED BV THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH,

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON (C) COPYRIGHT 1980

] -NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-NOT CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP AND 1983 UPDATE
LIMITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE IN ALBERTA

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

^Loyalist I

Kirkpatrick

Rushmer

Tp 32

j

0

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

OYEN 72 M

Loyalist I

Tp 35

5 750 ooo

S Berry-

J Dragon

liSflF

vm '

3J

/'ij \ » im.

4.1

Ijil

\ (|

[

Kirriemuir " ' : ^ j

W ( Altai

*C"

, ' = ;

!• |

^A]

I

K! *;•

i5 * -

\

5

T

o ' 1! rir

@>

J® „

f -

^ |

/

|

1

A-Ht-

W!

=j=

Pi

,

yrv

II ^

r/ (88
d

„

d

*

\s 1

^PU)

2

fcxca

y

L.' v \ / U

D \ T

V* \

SOURCE

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S, BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL OFFICE, LETHBRIDGE

-1983 UPDATE PREPARED FROM VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF LANDSAT— 4 IMAGERY
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH,
ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON. © COPYRIGHT 1980

LEGEND

] -NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

SCALE 1 : 250000

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 io

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH,

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON rCj COPYRIGHT 1980

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-NOT CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP AND 1983 UPDATE
LIMITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE IN ALBERTA

RECENT CULTIVATION CHANGES IN
PRONGHORN RANGE

R 28

R 27

R 26

R 25

R 24

§

R 23

45'

30'

15'

8

CULTIVATION CHANGES IN THE
PRONGHORN RANGE

LETHBRIDGE 82 H

-BASELINE MAP PREPARED FROM INTERPRETATION OF BLACK AND WHITE AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN IN THE LATE 1960'S, BY PERSONNEL AT FISH AND WILDLIFE

- iR 983 Update" p r e p a re dBf r om visual interpretation of landsat-4 imagery
BY THE RESOURCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SECTION, REAP, EDMONTON

SCALE 1 : 250000

5 10

produced by the surveys and mapping BRANCH

ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION, EDMONTON <© COPYRIGHT 1W0

LEGEND

SCALE 1 : 250000

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15

PRODUCED BY THE SURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH.
lBERTA TRANSPORTATION. EDMONTON. % COPYRIGHT 1980

-NATIVE VEGETATION, NOT CULTIVATED ON EITHER DATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, NOT CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-NOT CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP, CULTIVATED
ON 1983 UPDATE

-CULTIVATED ON BASELINE MAP AND 1983 UPDATE

LIMITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE RANGE IN ALBERTA